Quote from: Blackhand;428663This is why you don't deserve 40k.

Well, fortunately I got the sci-fi game I wanted in the form of Starblazer Adventures.  Throw in Legends of Anglerre there, and you might even actually be able to do WH40K RIGHT, not like the stupid fuckers ended up doing it.

Their claim was "40k is just TOO BIG and has too disparate a power level for it to possibly be included in one game; certainly no game in the past has covered all kinds of elements of a genre and included power levels from say, "basic" to "immortal" level, so it just CAN'T BE DONE".  
And of course, Starblazers did exactly that for sci-fi, just like D&D and countless other games have always done that for fantasy.  Their pathetic "its just too big" excuse was nonsense because they never wanted to make a real full RPG setting; they wanted to create three forge-esque intensely-focused microgames.  And they got what they wanted: three piles of crap.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;428710And of course, Starblazers did exactly that for sci-fi, just like D&D and countless other games have always done that for fantasy.  Their pathetic "its just too big" excuse was nonsense because they never wanted to make a real full RPG setting; they wanted to create three forge-esque intensely-focused microgames.  

RPGPundit

If that is the case than they failed absolutely miserably with the first book, Dark Heresy.

Sure: the default assumption is that you are playing acolytes of an Inquisitor going off to be killed in His name stopping ebil or something...

... but off the top of my head I can not think of a single mechanic anywhere in the actual book that reinforces that point.  If you can think of some OTHER reason for a soldier, a thug and a priest to meet in a bar on the sublevel of some hive world to look for treasure, you wouldn't have to make up or ditch any actual part of the book itself.

Most of the expansions are similarly wide open, though yes: There is a focus on Inquisition based play just like in D&D there is a focus on 'dungeon crawling' based play.

Rogue Trader is arguably more focused, what with the rules giving you a ship and a fortune swell enough to buy small planets to start with... but then that pretty much is all it gives you to focus the game play... mechanically.

So, really, your arguement only holds water, mechanically, with the Deathwatch book, as it only holds rules for Space Marines.... though again: If you want to play some OTHER space marine themed game, ignoring the deathwatch, mechanically there is nothing stopping you.

Did they really need to bulk up the books with the basic rule chapters in each case? Not really. But that is, essentially, what they did.  Your arguement is specious and focused entirely on your private monomania. Fie upon your head. Or something.

Rogue Trader is, in my opinion, friggin' fantastic. The other two I could live without. Dark Heresy is really all you need to run a good 40K campaign, and if you have even a drop of imagination and creativity, you could easily fill in any missing blanks (such as if someone wanted to play Eldar or whatever). I've run two 40K campaigns using Dark Heresy, and only one was "CoC in Spaaaaaace" (which was awesome); the other was standard dark, gritty sci-fi typical of 40K.

-=Grim=-

If FF started doing a series that allowed you to play aliens of various stripes I might be convinced to pay their outrageous prices.

Of the 3 games available, Dark Heresy is the only one I could remotely reccommend because its the only one that's all that finished.  

Rogue Trader might be a decent game in another 2-5 years, but right now its basically a skeleton of a game.

Deathwatch isn't even a skeleton - it's like a picture of what the skeleton might look like 5 years from now.  It's also kind of a dull concept (that would be more suited to one-shots IMO) and the rules have more issues than the other games.

Ultimately, I wouldn't reccommend any of them, though.

The FFG games have some cool ideas.  The production values are spectacular.  But the games themselves are just too lacking.

So much material is left out (years later and we're still missing all kinds of stats for iconic stuff).  It's spread throughout so many overpriced books.  

And the system itself is mediocre at best.  The super high whiff factor.  The advancement rules that are not only overcomplicated for no good reason, but require huge amounts of wasted space in the books.  The psyker rules that change with every game because they know the previous system was clunky.

The 40K wargame is designed to be fast and fun.  Even the older, more detailed editions were fairly fast and fun.  For some reason, the RPGs were designed to be slow and clunky.

For the 40K campaign I want to run in the future, I'm designing my own rules that basically merge the wargame rules with Deluxe BRP.

RT intrigued me enough to purchase.  seems like a ramped-up, slightly twisted version of traveller (which i love).

DH doesn't appeal--if i want to run "CoC investigations and combat in SPAAACE" then i'll do that.  don't need a new ruleset for that.

i don't see the point in DW.  base a whole (kinda) rpg on space marines?  just play an FPS or the tabletop game, then.  too one-dimensional, IMO.  and certainly not worth the expensive collector's edition treatment, either :jaw-dropping:

Quote from: beeber;428860i don't see the point in DW.  base a whole (kinda) rpg on space marines?  just play an FPS or the tabletop game, then.  too one-dimensional, IMO.  and certainly not worth the expensive collector's edition treatment, either :jaw-dropping:

Honestly, I think the Space Hulk and Space Crusade boardgames were more interesting and playable than DW.  

Or perhaps a Space Marines version of Advanced Heroquest.  I know I would have had a lot more fun with that than with DW.

Quote from: RPGPundit;428441They're all broken because they're all 1/3rd of a game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;428567That's the least critical objection anyone could actually level at these games.

That's the most uninformed opinion anyone could actually have about these games.

You're both wrong.  Each one of them is a separate game unto itself (1/1 Game x 3) but they don't represent 1/3 of a setting either, only the tiniest fraction.

Quote from: Spinachcat;428669However, I also like Savage Worlds + 40k Minis + 40k Setting Fluff and just designing my own campaign.  I've done Space Marine and Imperial Guard stuff and it was great fun.   This option was especially good with players who really dig the painted figs + terrain option and want to square off against the foes of the wargame, not just cultists.

I have to say I'd rather play the game this way than using any of the official rule sets.

Quote from: danbuter;428977I have to say I'd rather play the game this way than using any of the official rule sets.

It's not a bad way to play. I think the Necropolis setting for SW was custom-made for folks with just that idea in mind.

Quote from: GrimJesta;428825... if you have even a drop of imagination and creativity, you could easily fill in any missing blanks (such as if someone wanted to play Eldar or whatever).

Our Deadlands GM has been jonesing to play some DH and is currently working up the stuff for an Eldar campaign... because that's what will bring his wife to the table.
I'll happily play a space elf... but I'm hoping he'll let me play a Zoat.

Dark Heresy is totally the exact kind of game Forge has always tried to create!

:rotfl:

Anyway, I dislike the concept of Deathwatch, because frankly, Space Marines are boring as characters, because they don't have a personality beyond FOR THE EMPEROR and a mandatory chapter quirk. So what they have INSTEAD of a personality is "I'm a viking FOR THE EMPEROR" or "I really, really hate xenos FOR THE EMPEROR".

Deathwatch is a game I want to play on the computer as a FPS, but I wouldn't play it on the tabletop.

Dark Heresy has been great fun - I've wished it was more like Eisenhorn, but I think that's what the Ascension book is for.

Incidentially, what makes you say that Rogue Trader isn't complete? What exactly do you feel it lacks?

Quote from: Blackhand;428962That's the most uninformed opinion anyone could actually have about these games.

You're both wrong.  Each one of them is a separate game unto itself (1/1 Game x 3) but they don't represent 1/3 of a setting either, only the tiniest fraction.

How am I wrong? I didn't offer an opinion, I said that, of all the criticisms you could level at these games, that was the least.

I think they could have organised the setting, rpgwise, better than 3 books, but that choice alone doesn't diminish them. There are plenty of other things that do that, such as the total fail in prioritising information relevant to the games themselves. RT STILL doesn't have a spaceships book (though it may well be next).

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;429033How am I wrong? I didn't offer an opinion, I said that, of all the criticisms you could level at these games, that was the least.

I think they could have organised the setting, rpgwise, better than 3 books, but that choice alone doesn't diminish them. There are plenty of other things that do that, such as the total fail in prioritising information relevant to the games themselves. RT STILL doesn't have a spaceships book (though it may well be next).

So do you agree or disagree with the claim that Dark Heresy is actually 1/3 of a game which is actually comprised of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch?

Because the aforementioned claim is mistaken, wrong and incorrect.

Quote from: Axiomatic;429044So do you agree or disagree with the claim that Dark Heresy is actually 1/3 of a game which is actually comprised of Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader and Deathwatch?

Because the aforementioned claim is mistaken, wrong and incorrect.

They are three separate games. Whether they should be is another question.